Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I do not know why the parent was modded to -1; I was in the military for 12 years and also happen to highly value privacy of personal information and freedoms, and freedom of speech. But there is a necessity of trust in the military that is essential to the mission, and he knowingly broke that trust.

He chooses to pay himself dividends, not a salary. This means that his earnings are taxed on both sides, the corporate side and the individual side. As the major stock holder of BH, Buffet pays 35% as a corporation (lower actually, he is fighting IRS on this, he wants to pay only 30% or so, there is a huge legal battle going on there).

His actual tax (just the federal portion, excluding the State tax), is 35% corporate and 15% dividend, which is about 44% total. Again, that's before State and other taxes. So he is a liar.

Now, he pays himself about 60Million in taxes out of about a billion or so that he earns as a corporation (and corporate earnings are his earnings, it doesn't matter what side they are taxed at, it's the money he can't give himself he has to give to the gov't). He was actually asked in a show about this, his response was: "well, I am giving away 99% of my money, so to me it doesn't matter what I pay as a corporation".

Do you not see a problem with that logic? If he gives 99% of money to charity, the fact that he is actually taxed at 35% or so as a corporation doesn't mean anything to him, he is going to give away all of his corporate earnings anyway, but this goes directly against his message that he is paying only 15% tax (pure nonsense).

Also Buffet likes to say that tax rates have no bearing on people making investment decisions.

I have explained this nonsense position in a comment here [slashdot.org], the short of it is: if your investments are GUARANTEED to always succeed, that's one thing, but that's not how investments work, so taxes play a huge role in investment decisions, that's by the way why VCs are leaving.

Also don't forget that BH (Buffet's company) profits directly from other companies being shut down, going into bankruptcy and such (which higher taxes help to set up) because BH buys companies in distress at a huge discount, restructures and sells them for parts.

First, let's look at the issue of Manning potentially violating his security clearance and how it relates to military code of conduct;

On one hand, he did violate the rules placed on him for protecting classified information.On the other, he was protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]"The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Now, that being said, it is obvious that the US government violated the Whistleblower Protection Act, which all citizens should be up in arms about. What is the most bothersome issue is that nobody seems to care. Everyone seems to have this mindset that the US Government is God, and anything that makes God look bad is blasphemy.

When did we, as a society, decide that complacency is the best course of action?When did we, as a society, decide that severe punishment for anyone that criticizes the king is o.k.?When did we, as a society, decide that our inalienable rights have no value, and should be traded for a sense of security?

Let's look at this realistically.

Manning provides info to WikiLeaks, which he has Constitutional protection to do.Manning is imprisoned for 2 years, with only 1hr of each day NOT spent in solitary confinement.Manning is charged with the following;

Notice how "Aiding the enemy" was not in the original charges.Also note how "Failure to obey" is listed twice.

Anybody who still thinks that this behavior, and gross abuse of our civil and constitutionally protected rights, by the US Government, is acceptable, should be tried with treason themselves, as they are willing to subvert the US Constitution and the rights of it's citizens so they can try and sleep better at night.

More succinctly, only a psychopath would support the US Government, and as we all know, psychopaths do not make a decent, safe, or fair society.

When you are in the military, you agree to follow the chain of command. If you don't like it, don't work for the military and then start complaining about the rules. You can sit outside and complain about the rules all you want and in fact many people do. Military doesn't have much problem with people sitting on the sideline complaining what the military does - it simply doesn't matter - their chain of command starts with the commander-in-chief, and they are given orders which go down the line, and resources to fulfill them. That's how the system works.

Also, military does have mechanisms to address problems that arise in the military. But deliberately breaking all rules, and giving confidential information to foreign nations, no matter whether you agree with it or not, is straight up the definition of treason. If you don't agree with what your country does and do such things, you are committing treason - the intent might be as noble as you want, and the beneficiary nations may like what you're doing, but from the point of view of your country it is treason, and if you get caught, you will be prosecuted for treason. Bradley Manning, if he indeed did what he is accused of, will be considered a traitor. It's up to the court to determine whether this is the case, and all the whining about it is not going to change that.

Those people are big boys, they should understand basic definitions of their actions. Somehow in this age, because of how relatively peaceful last 60 years have been, a lot of people have lost (or never acquired) some basic concepts.

(c) Before a vote is taken of the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them--

(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;

While the Department of Justice relentlessly pursues, prosecutes and imprisons inconvenient whistleblowers, high-ranking bureaucrats who violate their rights are usually coddled by the system. The crooked wheel of justice crushes those at the lower levels of the government and pushes up criminals in high places.

Knowingly and willfully ignoring whistleblower disclosures;

Dismissing and closing hundreds of whistleblowing complaints without investigation

Deleting hundreds of files pertaining to whistleblowing disclosures and complaints of retaliation and reprisal;

Rolling back protections for federal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation;

Unlawful command influence (UCI) is one of the major reasons the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adopted after World War II. Unlawful command influence is prohibited under UCMJ Article 37(a).

UCI is considered a âoemortal enemy of military justice.â See United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388, 393 (C.M.A. 1986). Thomas is the famous Third Armor cases. In the recent case of United States v. Harvey, 64 M.J. 13 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the court said,

This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the military judge is the âoelast sentinelâ in the trial process to protect a court-martial from unlawful command influence. . . .

because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against command influence becoming unlawful.

So everyone parroting "UCMJ! UCMJ!", I have a simple question for you. Do you want Bradley Manning immediately released, given the Commander-in-Chief's textbook case of unlawful command influence, [msn.com] or are you a hack engaging in situational ethics?